1



### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50795 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M ARK D. M CGI LL I VRAY , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. COUN TR YW I DE HOM E L OANS, I NC. ; OCW EN FE DERAL BANK F S B; OC W EN LOAN SERVI CI N G LLC a nd GRE GO RY T. PRATT , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C O U N T R Y W ID E H O M E L O A N S , IN C ., P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. M A R KD
. M C G ILL IV R AY , an d/ or A l lO ccupa n t s, D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N os . 1: 05- C V

- 414, 1: 06- C V

- 331 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R . 47. 5, t hecourt h as determin ed th at this opinionsho uld not * be pub lish ed and is not pr ecede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 2 B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Appe l l antM ar k D. M c G i l l i vr ay ap pe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rg r ant i ng su m m a ryj u d gm en t i n fav or of A p p ell ee C ou n tryw i d e H om e L oa n s, In c. , an d i ts order di sm i ssi n g h i s c l ai m againstA pp el l ee G regory T. P rat tf or l ack of p r o s e c u tio n . F o rth e fo llo w in gre a s o n s , w e a ffir m .

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND Thi s c as e a r i s e s o uto f a ho m e f

o r e c l o s ur e s al e c o ndu ct e d b y o r de ro f t he 201s tJudi c i alD i st r i c tC ou rt o f T r avi s C ount y, Texas
. Af t erM c G i l l i vr ay d e fa u lte d o n h is m o r tg a g e , C o u n tr y w id e in itia te d fo r e c lo s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s in
s t a t e c o u r ta n d a p p o in t e d a s u b s t it u t e tr u s t e e . P r a t ts e r v e d a s C o u n t r y w id e ’s at t o r ne y i n t he fo r e c l o s ur e ac t i o n. The s t at e co ur tgr ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e nt t o C ou n t ryw i de an d ordered that t h e p ropert y be sol d at a pu bl i c aucti on . U pon th e s ig n in go f th e o r d e r , M c G illiv r a yw a s d iv e s te d o f a ll rig h ts a n d in te r e s t in t he pr o pe r t y. Cou nt r ywi de s ubs e quent l y pur c has e d t he pr o pe r t y att he f orecl osure sal e fr om the sub st i t u t e trust ee a n d bega n t ran sferri n g i t s i n t erest t o t he D e pa r t m e nto f V e t e r ans A f

fai r s (VA )
. Ocwen Loa n Se r vi c i ng, L. L. C. , t he l o an s e r vi c e rfo rt he V A, se nta l e t t e rby c e r t i f i e d m ai lt o M c G i l l i vr ayr e que s t i ng th a t alloccu p a n ts va ca te the pr em i ses w i th i n th ree d a ys . M cG i l l i vr a y fail ed to
c o m p l ywi t h t h i s r e q u e s t
. As a r e s ul to f t h e o n g o i n gl i t i g a t i o n , t h e VA tr a n s fe r r e d its in te r e s t b a c k to C o u n tr y w id e in J u n e o f 2 0 0 6
. A f t erC ou n tryw i de f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

orf or c ibl e de t ai ner , M c G i l l i vr ay rem oved t h e case t o t h e U n i t ed Stat es D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T e x a s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s o lid a tedC ou n tryw i d e’ s su i t w i th M cG illiv r a y ’ s s u it agai nstC ount r yw i de, w hi c h al so nam ed Prat tas a de fendant
. Purs uant t o 2 8 Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010McGillivraymoved in the alt er na tive for an ew tri al und er Federal Ruleof Civil 1 Pro cedur e 5 9(a). As the district court note d, however, Rule 59(a) presuppo ses that atri al has occurred. In thi s case , notri al has occurred. For si mplicity’ s sake, we tre at McGillivray’s mo tion a s on e u n de r Rule 5 9 (e) to alt er ora me n d j u dgme nt. See Piazza's Seaf ood Wor ld, LLC v. Odom, 4 4 8F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8n .9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 3 U
. S
. C
. § 636(b) ( 1) ( B ) , t h e di st ri ctcourtref erred C o u n try w i de’ s m ot i on f or s u mm a r yj u d g me n tt o a m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e . A f t e rc o n d u c t i n ga d e n o v o r e v i e w, t h e di st ri ctcourtaccept ed the m agis t rate ju dg e’ s r eport an d recom m en da t i on and gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm enti n favorof C ount r yw i de and o r der ed t hat M cG i l l i vray take n ot h i n g on hi s c l ai m s agai n stC ou n t ryw i de. Th e di st ri ctcourt
a l so d i sm i sse d M cG i l l i vr a y’ s su it a g a in s t P ra tt for l a ck of p rose cu ti on du e to M c G i l l i vr ay ’ s c o nt i nui ng fai l ur e t o c om pl y w i t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s c he dul i ng orde r . Fi nal l y, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d M c G i l l i vr ay ’ s m o t i o n t o s e t as i de or
m od i fy the j u d gm en t. 1 II. A N A L Y S IS W e r e v i e w a g r a nto f s um m a r yj ud g m e ntd e n o v o , a p p l y i ngt he s am e s ta n d a r d s a s t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Fier ro s v. T ex . D ep ’ t of Hea lth , 274 F. 3d 187, 190 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)
. W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs f

o rc l e are r r o ra nd
r e v ie w its le g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e n o v o . G arci a v. L u m aC orp , I nc . , 429 F. 3d 549, 553 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)
. W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o i m pose san ct i on s f or d is c o v e r yv io la tio n s fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Betz e lv. St at e Far m Ll oy ds , 480 F. 3d 704 , 707 n. 2 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)
. W e revi ew a den i alof a R u l e 59(e) m ot i on f or abu se o f d is c r e tio n . Col i seum S qu are A ss'n , I n c. v. Ja ckson , 465 F
. 3d 215 , 247 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). A . C oun t r yw i de’ s P et i t i on f or Forc i bl e D et ai ner M cG i l l i vray argu es t h at C ou n t ryw i de had n o st an di n g t o pu rsue an act i on f or f orcibl e d et ai n er becau se i tfai l ed t o p rodu ce the ori gi n alli en n ot e a n d d eed
o f t r us t
. M c G i l l i vr aym ai nt ai ns t hat , by ne gl e c t i ng t o pr o duc e t he not e a nd d e e d, C ount r yw i de has fai l ed t o m ee tt he r equi r em entt hat “ [ a] n ac t i on m ustbe Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/20104

p ro se cu te d in t h e n a m e of th e re a l pa rty in in te re st.” F e d
. R
. C iv. P
. 1 7 (a)(1 ). Af or c ibl e de t ai nerac t i on i s a “ spe c i a l p roce edi ng gov er ned by par t i c ul ar st atutes. I tw as cr eated t o p rovi de a speed y, si m pl e, an d i n exp en si ve m ean s f or reso l vin g th e q u estion of th e righ t t o p oss ess i on of p rem i ses . ” R i ce v. P i n n ey , 51 S
. W
. 3d 705 , 7 09 ( Tex
. App. –D al l as 2 00 1, no pe t
. ) ( c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. The rel evan tpart of

t h e T exas P ropert y C ode p rovi des: ( a) Aperson w h o ref

u ses t o surrend er posses si on of realproperty on dem an d com m i t s a f orcibl e detai n er i f

t h e person (2 ) . .
. is a te n a n t a t w ill o rb ys u ffe r a n c e . . . . (b) T h e dem an d f

or possessi on m u stbe m ad e i n w ri t i n g by a p erson e nt i t l e d t o po s s e s s i o n o f t he pr o pe r t y andm us tc o m pl y w i t h t he r e q u ir e m e n ts fo rn o tic e to v a c a te u n d e rS e c tio n 2 4 .0 0 5
. Tex
. Pr o p. Code Ann. § 24
. 00 2. The no t i c e r e qui r e m e nt s de pe n d on t he occupa n t ’ s s t atus on th e p ro p e rt y. I f t h e occ u pa n ti s a t en an tby suff eran ce, T exas l aw requi res t h at t h e l an dl ord “ gi ve t h e t en an t at l east t h ree days’w ri t t en n oti ce to v a ca te be fo r e t h e lan d l ord f i l es a f orcible d eta i n er su i t .
. . . ” I d. §24. 005(b)
. Th e not i c e m ay be del i ver ed i n per so n ors ent“by r egul arm ai l , by
r e g is te r e d m a il, o rb yce r tifie d m a il, re tu r n re c e ip t r e q u e s te d , to th e p r e m is e s in q u estion
. ” Id
. § 24
. 00 5(f )
. “ The o nl y i s s ue i n a f o r c ibl e de t ai ne ra c t i o n i s t he r i ght to a ctu a lp oss ess i on of th e p rem i ses . ” Marsha l lv. Hou si ng A u t h ori ty of C i ty of S a n A n to n io , 198 S. W
. 3d 782, 785 ( Tex. 2006) ( c i t at i ons om i t t ed)
. C ons equent l y, “[t ]o p r e v a il in a fo r c ib le d e ta in e ra c tio n , a p la in tiff is n o t re q u ir e d to p r o v e tit le bu ti s onl y requ i red t o show suf f i ci en tevi den ce of

ow n ershi p to dem on st rat e a su p erior ri gh t t o im m ed i a te p oss ess i on . ” Vi l l alo n v . Bank O ne , 176 S. W
. 3d 66, 7 0 (T e x . A p p . –H o u s to n [1 s t D is t.] 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n ie d ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). I n an ef f or t t o sho w t hat C ount r yw i de sho ul d have pro duce d t he o r i gi nal
no t e , M c G i l l i vr ayc i t e s c as e s s e t t i ng f o r t h t h e r e qui r e m e nt s f o rc o l l e c t i ng o n a pro m i ss or y not e. These aut hor i t i es ar e i r r el evantas t he i nst ant c as e i s notan Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/11/2010Mc Gillivrayals o argu es–without a nysup po rtin gauthority–th at C ountrywi demu st 2 nameall parties with a po ssessory interest in the cont ested property . Tex as l aw impo ses no suchr equirem ent onp laintiff s inf orcib le -d et ain eractio n s. See Tex . Prop. C od e. §§ 24 .002 , 2 4 .0 0 5
. 5 act i on t o col l ect o n a p ro m i ssor y n ot e. I n an act i on f or f orcibl e detai n er, 2 C ou n tryw i d e n ee d on ly s h ow su ff i ci en t evide n ce of ow n ersh i p t o d em on strate
a s u p e r io rrig h t t o i m m e d ia te p o s s e s s io n o f th e p r e m is e s . S ee U.S
. B a n k Na t. A ss'n v. Free n ey , 2 66 S
. W
. 3d 623 , 625 ( T ex. A pp . – D al l as 200 8, no p et
. ) ( ci t ati on o m itt e d ); seealso V

i l l alon , 176 S
. W
. 3d a t7 0 ( ci t ati on om i t t ed). T h e di st ri ctcourt hel d t hat t he e vi denc e pr es ent ed ats um m ar y j udgm entdem on strated t hat C ou n t ryw i de h ad p o ss e ssi on , ow n ershi p, an d controlof t h e note and deed of tru st a n d w a s th ere fore th e “rea lpa rty in inter est. ” S ee F e d . R
. C iv. P
. 1 7 (a )(1). W e f i nd n o e r r o ri n t hi s ho l di ng. The s ubs t i t ut e t r us t e e ’ s de e d c o nve yi n g t he p r o p e r ty to C o u n tr y w id e p r o v id e s s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e o f o w n e r s h ip a n d a “b a s is for d eterm i n i n g th e ri gh t t o im m ed i a te p oss ess i on . ” Free n ey , 266 S. W
. 3d at625- 26 (c i t ati on om i t t ed). M cG i l l i vray h as fai l ed to dem on st rat e t h a tt h e di st ri ct court e rred i n hol di n g t h at C ou n t ryw i de h ad st an di n g t o pu rsue an act i on f or fo r c ib le d e ta in e r . B . D ism issa l o f M c G il li v ra y ’ s S u it ag a in st P ra tt M c G i l l i vr ay al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i c tc our tabus ed i t s d i scre t i on by di sm i ssi n g h i s c om pl ai n tagainstP rat tf or l ack of

prosecuti on . Adi st ri ctcourt h as broad d i scr et i on i n f orm u l ati n g san ct i on s f or a vi ol ati on of

i t s s ched u l i n g or p r e tr ia l o r d e r s . B arret t v. A t l
. R i ch field C o. , 95 F. 3d 375, 380 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) ( ci t ati on om i t t ed). U n der F ederalR u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 16(f ) , a di st ri ctcourt
m a y , s u a s p o n te , is s u e s a n c tio n s , in c lu d in gth o s e a u th o r iz e d u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le
o f Ci vi lPr o c e dur e 3 7(b) ( 2) (A) (i i)

- (vi i) , i f a pa r t y fai l s t o co m pl y w i t h a s c he dul i ng order. O n e of the sa n ct i on s av ai l able t o a d i st ri ctcou rti s “ di sm i ssi n g t h e act i on o rp r o c e e d in gin w h o le o rin p a r t.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 3 7 (2 )(A )(v ). Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/11/20106

T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof the su i ta gainstP rat tw as n ota n a bu se of d is c r e tio n . T h e co u r t’s s c h e d u lin go r d e rre q u ir e d th e p a r t ie s to s e r v e th e ir desi gn ati on of

p ot en t i alw i t n esses , t est i f yi n g exp ert s, an d p roposed exh ibi t s on o r b e for e A u g u st 2 3 , 2 0 0 7
. T h e p a rtie s w e re a lso b o u n d b y L o ca l R u le C V -1 6 (e),
w hi c h r e qui r e d t he di s c l o s ur e o f c e r t ai n i nf

o r m at i o n a tl e as tt e n day s be f o r e t he f i n alpret ri a l co n ference. M cG i l l i vray n otonl y fai l ed to m ak e t h e requi red di scl osures in a ti m el y m an n er, bu tal so fai l ed to rem edy hi s non com pl i an ce a fte rth e c o u r t h a d a d m o n is h e d h im
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t it w o u ld b e m a n ife s t ly u nju s tto r e q u i r e P r a t tto p r o c e e d to tr ia l g iv e n M c G il li v r a y ’s
o ngo i ng r e f

us alt o c o m pl y w i t h t he l o c alr ul e s a nd t he c o ur t ’ s o r ders
. The d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f M c G illiv r a y ’ s s u it a g a in s t P r a tt a s a s a n c tio n fo rth is
m is c o n d u c t w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . C . M cG i l l i vr ay’ s R ul e 5 9( e) M ot i on W e n ow t u rn t o t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i al of M cG i l l i vray’ s R u le 59 ( e)
m o t i o n. A di s t r i c tc o ur tm aygr antre l i e f unde rR ul e 59( e ) ( 1) i f an i nt e r ve ni ng cha n ge i n contr ol l i n g l aw occurs; i f n ew evi den ce becom es ava i l able; or t o cor rect
a c le a re r r o ro rla w o rp r e v e n t m a n ife s t inju s tic e . S ee In re B enj am i n Moore & Co. , 318 F
. 3d 626 , 629 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. M ot i on s un der R u l e 59(e) “ can n otbe used t o rais e a r gum e nt s w hi c h c o ul d, a nd s ho ul d, ha ve b e e n m ad e b e f o r e j udg m e nt i ssu ed
. ” E l em ents C h rom i u m L
. P
. v. Coast al S t ate s Pet roleum Co. , 450 F. 3d 607, 6 1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (c ita t i o n o m itt e d ). Ad is tr ic t c o u r t h a s “c o n s id e r a b le d is c r e tio n in d e c id in gw h e th e rto g r a n t o rd e n ya m o tio n to a lte ra ju d g m e n t.” Halev. T

ow n l ey , 4 5 F .3 d 9 1 4 , 9 2 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d ). M c G illiv r a ya s s e r ts th a t h e re q u ir e s m o r e tim e to “in v e s tig a te , a s s e m b le
e vi de nc e a nd p r e s e ntt he sa m e t o t he co ur t ” t o dem o ns t r at e t hatt he und e r l yi ng col l ect i on a ct i on b y C ou n t ryw i de w as a fr au d on t h e court
. M cG i l l i vray d oes not poi n t t o an y cha n ge i n control l i n g l aw or t o an y n ew l y di scovere d evi den ce. M cG i l l i vray h as l i kew i se fai l ed to show t h at t h e m ot i on w as necessary t o pre ve nt Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/11/20107

m ani fes ti nj ust i c e. There f or e, t he di st r i c tcour tdi d n otabu se i t s di sc r et i on by d e n y in gth e m o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n d th e ju d g m e n t. For t he f

or ego i ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof t he di st r i c tc our ti s her eby A F F IR M E D
. Case: 08-50795 Document: 00511000496 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/11/2010